The Bombay High Court has delivered a significant ruling reinforcing that preventive detention under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities Act cannot rest on stale allegations or unverified hearsay. The judgment underscores that personal liberty under Article 21 cannot be curtailed without concrete, current, and specific material demonstrating a direct threat to public order.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, Shyamsingh s/o Gendasingh Mathwale, was detained under the Maharashtra Prevention of Dangerous Activities of Slumlords, Bootleggers, Drug-Offenders/Dangerous Persons, Video Pirates, Sand Smugglers And Persons Engaged in Black-Marketing of Essential Commodities Act, 1981 (M.P.D.A. Act). The detaining authority relied primarily on two criminal cases to justify the detention: C.R. No. 60/2025 (robbery and arms offence) and C.R. No. 253/2025 (assault and damage to public property). Four earlier cases from 2020 - 2022 were also cited, but with no demonstrable connection to the detention’s timing or rationale.
Procedural History
- 9 February 2025: C.R. No. 60/2025 registered at Vazirabad Police Station; petitioner granted bail on 13 March 2025
- 13 June 2025: C.R. No. 253/2025 registered; petitioner not arrested, only served with notice
- 7 July 2025: Statements of two secret witnesses recorded
- 5 August 2025: Detention order passed by District Magistrate
- 14 August 2025: State Government approved detention
- 17 September 2025: Advisory Board confirmed detention
- 23 January 2026: Petition heard and reserved
- 28 January 2026: Judgment pronounced
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the detention order, approval, and confirmation orders on grounds of non-application of mind, reliance on stale and unverified evidence, and failure to consider his bail status.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether preventive detention under Section 2(b-1) of the M.P.D.A. Act can be justified when the alleged offences are either time-barred, pending with bail granted, or where no arrest was made, and the only evidence consists of vague, hearsay-based statements from secret witnesses.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the detaining authority failed to establish a live link between the petitioner’s past conduct and current threat to public order. He emphasized that the two primary offences relied upon were either already bailable or did not result in arrest. He cited Hanif Alias Illu Hafiz Ansari v. State of Maharashtra to show that mere pendency of cases or past offences, without evidence of ongoing danger, cannot sustain detention. He further contended that secret witness statements were stereotyped, lacked specificity, and were not verified by any independent authority.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that the detaining authority had formed subjective satisfaction based on the secret witness statements and the petitioner’s criminal history. It argued that the M.P.D.A. Act permits preventive detention based on a holistic assessment of conduct, even without formal conviction. The State maintained that the order was passed within statutory timelines and that judicial review should not substitute its subjective satisfaction.
The Court's Analysis
The Court examined the legal threshold for preventive detention under the M.P.D.A. Act and the constitutional safeguards under Article 22 and Article 21. It held that subjective satisfaction must be grounded in tangible, current, and verifiable material - not speculative or stale allegations.
"Detaining authority had not recorded its subjective satisfaction that statements of witnesses were genuine and it had not interacted with ACP to verify such statement. Order granting anticipatory bail was not placed before the detaining authority and therefore detention order stood quashed."
The Court noted that the first offence (C.R. 60/2025) was committed in February 2025, and the petitioner had been released on bail by March 2025. The detention order of August 2025 made no reference to this bail order or any breach of its conditions. The second offence (C.R. 253/2025) did not even result in arrest, rendering it legally insufficient to justify deprivation of liberty.
The Court further held that the secret witness statements were devoid of specific incidents, dates, or corroboration. They were generic allegations of "dangerous behavior" - likely derived from hearsay - which cannot substitute for evidentiary material. The Court emphasized that public order must be threatened by present conduct, not past incidents that are either bailable or uninvestigated.
The Advisory Board’s confirmation was deemed irrelevant, as it operates on the same deficient material. The Court concluded that the detention order lacked the requisite material to satisfy the triple test for preventive detention: (1) existence of a threat, (2) nexus between the threat and the person, and (3) necessity of detention to prevent harm.
The Verdict
The petitioner won. The Court held that preventive detention under the M.P.D.A. Act requires a live, current, and specific link to public order, and cannot be sustained on stale, unverified, or non-arrested offences. The detention order, its approval, and confirmation were quashed, and the petitioner was directed to be released forthwith.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Detention Cannot Rest on Bail Status Ignored
- Practitioners must challenge detention orders that omit reference to bail grants or conditions breached
- Failure to consider bail orders constitutes non-application of mind and renders detention arbitrary
- Always request and annex bail orders in writ petitions challenging preventive detention
Secret Witness Statements Must Be Specific and Verified
- Vague, stereotyped statements about "dangerousness" without incident details are legally inadequate
- Detaining authorities must record verification steps taken, including interaction with investigating officers
- Courts will not accept hearsay-based intelligence as sufficient grounds for deprivation of liberty
Past Offences Alone Are Insufficient
- Offences committed years prior, especially those pending with bail, cannot form the basis of detention
- A "pattern of conduct" must be demonstrated through recent, active, and un-bailable criminality
- Practitioners should highlight temporal gaps and lack of escalation in criminal conduct to undermine detention claims
